egmat wrote:
@Chiranjeev has provided an excellent explanation, however I would like to modify his explanation of choice C (which is mostly correct)
Quote:
(C) Many banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers
This choice is
completely neutral and does not weaken the argument event slightly: This choice simply says that banks did something in the past and they are still doing in now. Its like saying that banks provided free coffee in the past and still do so now. Does it mean that banks have increased their investment in coffee (probably by serving Latte's instead of black coffee) - no. Does it mean that they have decreased the investment - no. Hence, this choice is completely neutral and not a "weak" weakener.
-Rajat
Hi,
I agree with most of your explanation. However, I have a query. It would be great if you could help me with this.
The stem is "Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the
position taken by the apex banking regulator? ".
What is the position taken by the apex banking regulator?
Isn't this the same as conclusion i.e. "banks are favouring profits over customer welfare"?
If this is the case, isn't option C damaging to this position?
Even, if the stem is changed to the following:
Which of the following, if true, is most damaging to the
argument by the apex banking regulator?
Still, in this case also, option C is not completely neutral.
Let's see:
1. Conclusion: banks are favoring profits over customer welfare
2. Premise to 1: banks are not passing on the benefit of cut in policy rates to the borrowers.
3. Premise to 2 (2 is derived from this): lending rates of banks have not come down in tandem with reduction in the liquidity reserve ratio rate; rather the rates have gone up.
Option C doesn't counter either statement 2 or statement 3 (since we limit ourselves to recent rate cuts). But there is an assumption needed to generalize statement 2 (premise to 1) to the conclusion (statement 1). See below argument:
Even if the banks have not passed on the benefit of recent rate cuts to the consumers, we can't say that banks are favoring profits over customer welfare because banks still invest a considerable amount of money in improving the banking experience of their customers.
Does this argument not make sense at all? If not, then option C is neutral. If it makes some sense, then option C is a weak "weakener".
Rajat - Your views are welcome.
Warm Regards,
CJ